Download Protecting Cultural Resources in Coastal U.S. National Parks from

Protecting Cultural Resources in
Coastal U.S. National Parks from Climate Change
Maria Caffrey and Rebecca Beavers
THE U.S. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MANAGES OVER 84 MILLION ACRES OF LAND on which are
located around 26,000 historic structures. One hundred fifty areas under Park Service management are designated as “cultural landscapes.” The impact of climate change on cultural
resources will challenge many resource managers, in particular those responsible for protecting America’s heritage in national parks. Rising sea level and projected increases in average
annual temperatures will undoubtedly impact many parks’ natural resources, which have led
some to ask, “What is being done to protect cultural resources from climate change?”
This paper will discuss what steps have
already been taken to uphold the Park Service’s mission to “preserve unimpaired the
natural and cultural resources and values of
the national park system. . .” (NPS 2007a).
In particular, we discuss how cultural resources are being impacted by observed
changes in climate and discuss how we
expect cultural resources to be affected over
the next century, based on projections by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC).
Fort Massachusetts in Gulf Islands
National Seashore and Cape Hatteras Lighthouse in Cape Hatteras National Seashore
will be used here as examples of large-scale
measures that are being taken to preserve
cultural resources that would otherwise be
lost to a changing climate.
Literature review
When many of us think of climate
change and cultural resources, we may
think of the cultural resources that are currently endangered by rising sea level in
86
some of the oldest cities of the world, such
as Venice or London. In early 2007,
UNESCO listed twenty-six examples of
World Heritage sites (out of 830 total) that
are threatened by climate change
(UNESCO 2007). These sites represent
areas of global significance that are immediately at risk from changing climatic conditions. The list is categorized based on
whether the sites are (1) glaciers, (2) areas
of high marine biodiversity, (3) areas of high
terrestrial biodiversity, (4) archeological
sites, or (5) historic cities and settlements.
While these sites are important, they
are merely examples of well-known sites
that need protection. The question of how
we protect those sites has been the subject
of a number of reports and research conducted by various players, including those
at multinational (e.g., UNESCO 2006,
2007), national (e.g., Cassar 2005) and academic (e.g., Dietz et al. 2003; Wallach
2005; Hassler 2006) scales. However, while
the ecological impacts of climate change
have been discussed extensively in the literThe George Wright Forum
Climate Change and Cultural Heritage
ature, Carter et al. (2001) have found any
discussion of resource management and
sustainability to be lacking. Overall, the discussion of what can be done to protect fixed
sites that cannot naturally adapt to a changing climate, such as cultural heritage sites,
has been largely overlooked by those in
anthropology, archeology, geography, and
other academic fields, leaving the discussion of what should be done about this
issue almost exclusively to those in governmental institutions. This lack of research
interest partly may be due to the lack of
immediate “catastrophic” levels of impact
by climate change. Patterson et al. (2006)
point out that it can be difficult to plan for
climate change due to temporal incongruities between cultural tourism (that can
change over the scale of a few years) and
ecological changes that are expected to
occur over decades.
UNESCO (2006) outlined some suggested ways to predict and manage the
effects of climate change. This report takes
an even-handed approach to climate change
that emphasizes preparation over a variety
of temporal and spatial scales. In suggestions to resource managers, the report lists
the following steps as part of a suggested
strategy:
• Take preventative actions that include
monitoring, reporting, and mitigation
measures that should be “environmentally sound choices and decisions at a
range of levels: individual, community,
institutional and corporate.”
• Employ corrective actions to adapt to
changing climatic conditions.
• Share knowledge.
This approach also follows the work of
Patterson (2003), in which she states that
climate and tourism is a “two-way street”
Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008)
that needs both mitigation where (in this
case) cultural tourism can impact climate,
and adaptation to climate’s impact on cultural resources. Patterson et al. (2006) further echo the work by UNESCO by stating
that mitigation and adaptation must involve
stakeholders on a number of levels to be
successful, which has been the case for the
examples that will be discussed in this
paper. Tourism is a vital part of protecting
cultural resources because tourist dollars
can contribute to protecting sites of cultural
significance. However, it should not be forgotten that tourism itself can also harm
these areas, not only by on-site impacts but
also by less-obvious impacts such as using
cars that release greenhouse gases to get to
the sites. The National Park Service relies
on fees paid by visitors to assist them in
maintaining and protecting the parks. With
escalating temperatures in some regions
and increasing sea level among other threats
from climate change, the question arises:
“Can the financial cost of protecting these
resources exceed their cultural value?”
Whitehead and Finney (2003) tested
willingness to pay to protect cultural resources in North Carolina through a survey
of 884 members of the public. The study
asked respondents how much they would
be willing to pay to protect submerged cultural resources (shipwrecks) found around
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, as a onetime tax increase. Respondents were also
asked how much more they would be willing to pay based on the number of submerged shipwrecks saved. Overall, they
found respondents willing to pay to protect
cultural resources, although the number of
shipwrecks being saved did not play a major
role in their decision-making.
However, this work did not include any
questions regarding the length of time that
87
Climate Change and Cultural Heritage
these resources should be protected. Climate change, which works on a scale of
decades to centuries, will test how long
these resources can be protected. In this
paper, moving Cape Hatteras Lighthouse is
a case in point of a measure that can only
mitigate for nature’s impacts for a limited
amount of time before more must be done.
In the meantime, managers are reassessing
what preventative measures can be used
around Cape Hatteras itself, and are monitoring and reporting the progress of sealevel rise and erosion around the site.
In contrast, Fort Massachusetts requires
more immediate attention—a situation that
has managers asking what would be the best
way to protect it. The planning for the fort
is currently in the UNESCO “corrective
actions” stage of protection, whereby the
site has to adapt now to climate change.
Climate change
In February 2007, the IPCC
released its fourth assessment report
on climate change. In addition to
building on the work of their previous
assessments by outlining its predictions for future impacts of climate
change, the IPCC also discussed how
changing climate is already impacting
the Earth, and, crucially, what is causing these changes. For the first time the
IPCC stated that changes in atmospheric gases (principally carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and
ozone) have significantly increased
due to anthropogenic activities and
that it is very likely (within a 90–99%
probability) that these human influences are driving the observed
changes in climate (IPCC 2007b).
IPCC predictions are built on six
possible scenarios for future changes
88
in society that could impact the level of
anthropogenic greenhouse gases. These
scenarios take into account changing rates
of population growth, technology, and rates
of economic development. From these scenarios, changes in the rate of sea-level rise
and regional temperatures have been calculated (Figure 1). Surface air temperatures in
the United States are predicted to warm by
2–3°C by 2100 along the western, southern, and eastern continental edges, with
greater warming of up to 5°C in the North
(IPCC 2007a). This increase in average
annual temperatures will be accompanied
by a 20–30% increase in precipitation in
most regions that will manifest itself as more
intense, short-duration storms that could
result in flash flooding, particularly in the
summer months. Projections by global circulation models also show a northward shift
Figure 1. Observed global average temperature, sea
level, and northern hemisphere snow cover. Averages
are relative to the 1961–1990 period. Circles represent
yearly values. Source: IPCC 2007a. Reproduced courtesy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The George Wright Forum
Climate Change and Cultural Heritage
in hurricane tracks, with an increase in the
number of higher-intensity hurricanes and
a decrease in moderate-intensity hurricanes
(IPCC 2007b).
However, from a coastal management
perspective, one of the most important
changes in climate will be rising sea level.
The IPCC predicts a global average sealevel rise of up to 59 cm by 2100, with average rates of rise almost doubling from 1.7
mm/yr-1 over the last century to 3 mm/yr-1
since the early 1990s (Rahmstorf 2007;
IPCC 2007a). This number is expected to
increase to at least 4 mm/yr-1 over the coming century (IPCC 2007a). In order to
assess U.S. coastal national parks’ ability to
adapt to climate change, the National Park
Service, in collaboration with U.S. Geological Survey, have published a number of
reports using the rate of sea-level rise coupled with variations in mean significant
wave height and tidal range and other geologic variables, such as the geomorphology,
shoreline erosion/accretion rates, and
regional coastal slope, to calculate a relative
coastal vulnerability index (CVI) for 23
coastal parks to identify areas in the national park system that are susceptible to climate change.
While this research looks at physical
parameters, this work can be used by cultural resource managers to help identify
areas of cultural significance that could be
submerged or lost to changes in landform
(i.e., eroded or buried) in the future (USGS
2007a). Cultural resource managers can use
the maps and reports to measure whether
the area their resources are located in is of
very low to very high vulnerability in comparison with the rest of their park. Results
are also broken down further based on the
six physical and geologic variables analyzed
in each park report, which are posted on the
Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008)
CVI website. However, the CVI index does
not quantitatively take into account the cultural or social values of the coastlines that
are physically changing.
Fort Massachusetts, Mississippi
Fort Massachusetts is an example of a
nationally significant resource of great cultural value that is threatened by rising sea
level. It is a brick structure that cannot be
moved and will therefore have to be protected using engineered measures, or else risk
being lost to the rising waters of the
Mississippi Sound and surrounding Gulf of
Mexico. The question of what would be the
best approach to protect the fort has been
the subject of some debate in recent
decades, particularly in light of predicted
rises in sea level and other factors resulting
from climate change. A number of “hard”
(engineered, long-lasting measures) and
“soft” (more natural, shorter-term) approaches have been taken to protect Fort
Massachusetts from its changing environment. Harder measures, such as installing
groins and sea walls, are longer lasting, yet
are expensive to install, affect down-drift
sediment transport, and, some say, detract
from the aesthetic enjoyment of the structure. Soft measures, such as beach replenishment, are less intrusive, but they are usually short-term and can be more expensive
over the longer term (French 2001).
The fort is part of Gulf Islands National Seashore, located approximately 20
km south of Mississippi on West Ship
Island in the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 2). The
fort was built during the Civil War (between
1859 and1866) and remained virtually untouched from 1870 until 1975. Gulf Islands
National Seashore was created in 1971,
with part of the legislation recognizing Fort
Massachusetts as a structure of the first
89
Climate Change and Cultural Heritage
Figure 2. West Ship Island and Fort
Massachusetts, with CVI assessment
results (Pendleton et al. 2004a). Photo
© 2007 DigitalGlobe, reproduced
courtesy of Google.
order of significance because of its
national significance as an “American Third System masonry fort”
and for its unique “D” shape
(Toscano 2004).
However, over a century of
exposure to salt air, wave action
from the Mississippi Sound, and a
number of hurricanes, most notably hurricanes Camille (1969) and Katrina
(2005), has begun to erode the brick building’s mortar. Hard structures consisting of a
seawall and groin were built around the fort
in 1917 to protect it from erosion. In the
1960s, funding was raised by citizens of the
“Save the Fort” committee to construct a
circular rock jetty around the fort as a provisional breakwater to deflect some of the
energy of waves eroding the shore (Figure
3).
However, debris and remnants of a
lighthouse east of the fort continue to exacerbate efforts because they act as an unintended “hard structure,” acting like a groin
to capture sediment that could be used to
protect the fort.
Soft approaches have also been taken,
including dredging offshore and in channels to relocate sand back onto the national
seashore’s beaches, particularly on West
Ship Island to renourish what has been
eroded, using sediment of a similar size and
composition. But this is not a permanent
solution and ongoing maintenance is
required. However, sea level continues to
rise which, coupled with the geology of the
area, will threaten Fort Massachusetts by
making the structure increasingly more vul90
nerable to shoreline encroachment and
inundation.
Pendleton et al. (2004b) found West
Ship Island to have a “high” to “very high”
vulnerability ranking based primarily on its
barrier beach geomorphology, very high
rates of erosion (more than 2 m per year),
near-flat coastal slope (<0.3%), and minimal
tide range (less than 1 m). While Pendleton
et al. (2004b) found relative sea-level
change to only be moderate around the
island (2.5–3 mm/yr), this is still significant
when the above factors are also taken into
account. Furthermore, this rate would still
amount to a rise in sea level around Fort
Massachusetts of 2.4–2.9 m by 2100. Given
the fort’s current location a few meters
Figure 3. Fort Massachusetts during the 1950s,
prior to funding for a rock jetty around the structure.
Climate Change and Cultural Heritage
above sea level, it appears that intervention
with either hard or soft measures to save the
structure over the next century will be
inevitable.
Cape Hatteras Lighthouse National
Historic Landmark, North Carolina
Cape Hatteras Lighthouse National Historic Landmark provides an example of
measures that have already been taken to
react to changes in shoreline position resulting from a combination of natural and
anthropogenic influences. The measures
used to protect the lighthouse represent
some of the more drastic (and costly)
responses possible for resource managers.
While a number of measures were employed over the years to protect the structure, ultimately the lighthouse had to be
moved away from the receding shoreline.
However, this type of action would not be
available to many cultural resources, such as
cemeteries, eroding battlegrounds, or historic forts such as Fort Massachusetts.
Cape Hatteras Lighthouse is one of
three lighthouses found in Cape Hatteras
National Seashore, the eighth-most-visited
coastal park in 2006, with 2.25 million visitors (NPS Office of Statistics 2007). It was
built during the period 1869–1870 for
Atlantic ships passing along the Outer
Banks of North Carolina in an area previously known as the “graveyard of the Atlantic” due to its treacherous conditions (NPS
2007b). Unfortunately these rough, stormy
conditions have also proven hazardous to
the lighthouse that was intended to protect
ships from the storm-driven ocean waves
and currents that wash over the Outer
Banks and transport sediment into the
sound. In 1869 and 1870 the lighthouse
was constructed approximately 450 m from
the shore. The lighthouse was a replaceVolume 25 • Number 2 (2008)
ment for the first Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, constructed in 1803. The 1869–
1870 lighthouse is the tallest in the nation,
measuring 58.8 m, although it is best
known for its distinctive black and white
diagonally striped exterior, painted in 1873.
The lighthouse is a significant cultural
resource as a record-breaking historic structure of engineering significance, but also
because it adds to the aesthetic enjoyment
of the coastline, having been described as
“one of the most striking and beautiful
structures on the Atlantic Coast” (NPS
2007c).
However, over the first 130 years of the
lighthouse’s existence, erosion took its toll
on the surrounding land. By 1935 already,
waves had eroded most of the 450 m of
beach in front of the lighthouse and the
ocean reached to within 30 m of the base of
the tower. A combination of natural changes
and a number of protective measures postponed the threat for a number of years.
Over the years, a number of erosion control
projects have been initiated at the lighthouse site to protect the structure. They
include: sheet pile groins (installed in the
1930s), beach renourishment (1966, 1971,
and 1973), nylon sand-filled bags (1967),
reinforced concrete groins (1967), a sandbag seawall (1971; Figure 4), piled rubble
(1980), artificially created “seascapes” to
capture sediment (1981), seawall revetment
with artificial seaweed (1980s), and sand
bag revetment (1990s) (Platt et al. 1988).
Despite these measures, increases in
sea level and a number of high-intensity
hurricanes continued to remove the sediment surrounding the lighthouse and
threatened to engulf it. The National
Academy of Sciences recommended in
1988 that the lighthouse be moved, but it
was not moved until June 1999 due to
91
Climate Change and Cultural Heritage
Figure 4. Sandbag seawall in
front of Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, taken shortly after the seawall was constructed in 1971.
The seawall was destroyed by
wave action soon thereafter.
Source: USGS 2007b. R. Dolan
photo courtesy of U.S. Geological Survey.
lengthy planning and appeals against the
plan. Eventually the lighthouse and keepers’ quarters were moved southwest approximately 885 m to a new location that is again
450 m from the shore, at a cost of $11.8 million (Figures 5–6). The lighthouse was
opened again to the public on May 26,
2000.
In 2004, Cape Hatteras National Seashore’s coastal vulnerability assessment was
published. Overall, 26% of the park was
classified as having a “very high” relative
coastal vulnerability (Pendleton et al.
2004a). Cape Hatteras Lighthouse was also
classified as a “very high” coastal vulnerability in five out of six assessment criteria:
geomorphology, erosion, relative sea-level
change, mean wave height, and mean tide
range (Figure 7). The coastal slope of the
location was assessed as “high” vulnerability because the grade was 0.60–0.30% (Pendleton et al. 2004a).
Based on tide gauge data, sea level in
nearby Beaufort, North Carolina, has been
rising over the past 27 years at a rate of
3.71±0.64 mm/yr-1 (Zervas 2001; Pendleton et al. 2004a), which is higher than current IPCC global averages (IPCC 2007a).
The North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management (2004) has also determined
that the shoreline in front of the lighthouse
92
has been eroding at an average of 2 m/yr-1
over the past 50 years (not accounting for
additions to the shoreline using artificial
forms of beach nourishment and reinforcement), with the shoreline to the south of the
lighthouse location eroding at an average of
3.7 m/yr-1. This is particularly troubling
given the projected increases in sea level
and associated shoreline erosion brought
about by anthropogenic warming. Based on
these rates, the sea level of Cape Hatteras is
conservatively expected to increase by 3.67
m by 2100, not accounting for changes in
volume from increased water temperature
and salinity (Miller and Douglas 2004).
Furthermore, high-intensity hurricanes
with storm surges also contributed to a large
amount of erosion around the lighthouse
when it was in its previous position. Some
28 recorded hurricanes have directly struck
Cape Hatteras National Seashore since
1854 (NOAA 2006). In 2003, Hurricane
Isabel particularly impacted the barrier
islands of capes Lookout and Hatteras. In
particular, the IPCC has noted increased
intense tropical cyclone activity in the
North Atlantic since the 1970s, which is
linked to increased sea-surface temperatures (IPCC 2007a). Given the expected
increases in sea-surface temperatures resulting from anthropogenic warming, the IPCC
The George Wright Forum
Climate Change and Cultural Heritage
Figure 5. Cape Hatteras Lighthouse in its original
location. Inset: The lighthouse in its current location. Photos courtesy of the National Park
Service.
(2007b) now finds it likely that intense tropical cyclone activity will increase, which
could further jeopardize the Cape Hatteras
coastline and its cultural resources.
Although Cape Hatteras Lighthouse is
presently out of danger from sea-level
change, this does not mean that it will be
protected indefinitely. Without the added
push by anthropogenically driven warming,
it is expected (based on the current rate of
erosion) that the location of the lighthouse
would have to reassessed again at least by
2199 (NPS 2007d). However, the factors
discussed above brought about by climate
change are expected to have a major impact
on the rate of erosion around the historic
landmark. This means that more may need
to be done to protect the structure before
the end of this century.
Discussion
Fort Massachusetts and Cape Hatteras
Lighthouse are examples of corrective and
preventive actions, respectively, that are part
of Patterson’s (2003) two-way street of
adaptation and mitigation. However,
UNESCO (2006) also stresses the importance of sharing knowledge to further protect cultural resources. The National
Park Service has begun this process
by encouraging national parks to
take part in its Climate-Friendly
Parks program, which is designed to
help and educate resource managers about
the impacts of climate change on their
parks. Research by Pendleton et al. (2004a,
2004b) has also been used by stakeholders
and managers to assess their parks’ vulnerability to rising sea level in an easy-to-interpret manner so that mitigation strategies
can be put in place. Many of these mitigation measures take years to research and
organize funding for—steps which should
be taken now so that resource managers are
not caught unawares when increased sea
level is on their resource’s doorstep. In the
Figure 6. The path of the Cape Hatteras
Lighthouse move. The arrow indicates the
direction of movement from the lighthouse’s original location. Photo © 2007
DigitalGlobe, reproduced courtesy of
Google.
Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008)
93
Climate Change and Cultural Heritage
case of Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, it
took 11 years from when a move was
first proposed (in 1988) to when it was
accomplished (in 1999). During that
time the shoreline in front of the lighthouse had eroded further by approximately 22 m. Fort Massachusetts may
not have 11 years to wait before something can be done to further protect it
from sea-level rise and an eroding shoreline.
The dissemination of information
about climate change’s impact on coastal
cultural resources is an ongoing process
that will involve participation from the
individual/public to the global/transgovernmental level of stakeholders. It should also not be forgotten that
most cultural resources cannot be
moved as Cape Hatteras Lighthouse
was. This may be for practical reasons
or because it is simply not economically Figure 7. Cape Hatteras CVI results. Source: Pendleton
possible to do so. The National Park 2007b.
Service has approximately 25 parks that
over the fort, causing significant damage
contain lighthouses. It is unlikely that every
(Fritz et al. 2007).
lighthouse in those parks could be moved if
It should also be considered that many
threatened by changing environmental connational parks still contain valuable cultural
ditions. The National Park Service also has
artifacts on their grounds that have not yet
a number of sites of cultural significance,
been discovered. Recent erosion at Jamessuch as Fort Massachusetts, that cannot be
town National Historic Site uncovered a
moved. At these sites, the National Park
location of significant archeological value
Service must consider a strategy of retreat
that could have been eroded away had it not
with selective preservation efforts, or implebeen for its discovery by park managers.
ment harder structures such as rock armorThere are still many sites on national park
ing or sea walls to protect vital cultural
property that could be of significant culturresources, as rising sea levels limit the feasial value to future generations but which
bility of keeping a sand buffer along the
cannot all be identified before the impacts
shoreline. Hard structures will not protect
of climate change take their toll (NPCA
Fort Massachusetts from the impact of
2007).
increased temperatures and the possibility
of more-intense storms that could damage
Conclusions
its structure. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina
The next decades hold a great deal of
generated a 9-m storm surge that washed
uncertainty for many cultural resources
94
The George Wright Forum
Climate Change and Cultural Heritage
throughout the world, particularly those in
the coastal zone. Those in the U.S. national
park system must be protected; however,
this will be a difficult task in many cases,
such as that of Fort Massachusetts. A number of financial and technological hurdles
that require a high degree of resourcefulness must be overcome first. Cape Hatteras
Lighthouse represents an extreme example
of what engineering methods can be used to
protect these resources; it is also an example of managers taking a more proactive
approach to planning for climate change.
Overall, the three steps of conservation outlined by UNESCO (2006) are effective
means of dealing with climate change, but
the question still remains as to whether it
will be feasible to prevent damage by
increasing sea level or changing environmental variables to all cultural resources.
References
Carter, R.W., G.S. Baxter, and M. Hockings. 2001. Resource management in tourism research: A new direction? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9, 265–280.
Cassar, M. 2005. Climate Change and the Historic Environment. Nottingham, U.K.: The
Russell Press.
Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P.C. Stern. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science
302, 1907–1912.
French, P.W. 2001. Coastal Defenses: Processes, Problems and Solutions. New York: Routledge.
Fritz, H.M., C. Blount, R. Sokoloski, J. Singleton, A. Fuggle, B.G. McAdoo, A. Moore, C.
Grass, and B. Tate. 2007. Hurricane Katrina storm surge distribution and field observations on the Mississippi Barrier Islands. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. (In press.)
IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. 2007a. Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press.
———. 2007b. Summary for policy makers. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Hassler, U. 2006. Implications of climate change on heritage. Building Research and Information 34, 175–179.
Miller, L., and B.C. Douglas. 2004. Mass and volume contributions to twentieth-century
global sea level rise. Nature 428, 406–409.
NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]. 2006. Historical North Atlantic and East-Central North Pacific Tropical Cyclone Tracks, 1851–2005. Charleston,
S.C.: NOAA Coastal Services Center. Online at http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes
/index.htm.
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. 2004. Cape Hatteras at Buxton: Long
Term Average Annual Shoreline Change Study and Setback Factors (Updated Through
1998). Raleigh: North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.
NPCA [National Parks Conservation Association]. 2007. Unnatural Disaster: Global
Warming and Our National Parks. Washington, D.C.: NPCA.
Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008)
95
Climate Change and Cultural Heritage
NPS [National Park Service]. 2007a. Mission. Online at www.nps.gov/aboutus/mission.htm.
———. 2007b. Graveyard of the Atlantic. Online at www.nps.gov/archive/caha/graveyard.htm.
———.
2007c.
The
Cape
Hatteras
Lightstation.
Online
at
www.nps.gov/archive/caha/capelight.htm.
———. 2007d. North Carolina State University 1997 review and update of the1988 National
Research Council Report, part II. Online at www.nps.gov/archive/caha/1997update2.htm.
NPS Office of Statistics. 2007. NPS statistics. Online at www2.nature.nps.gov/stats/.
Patterson, T. 2003. Tourism and climate change: Mapping the interactions. In Proceedings of
the NATO Advanced Research Workshop: Tourism and Climate Change—Assessment and
Coping Strategies. B. Amelung and D. Viner, eds. Warsaw, Poland: North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.
Patterson, T., S. Bastianoni, and M. Simpson. 2006. Tourism and climate change: Two-way
street, or vicious/virtuous circle? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14, 339–348.
Pendleton, E.A., E.R. Thieler, and S.J. Williams. 2004a. Coastal Vulnerability Assessment of
Cape Hatteras National Seashore (CAHA) to Sea-level Rise. Woods Hole, Mass.: U.S.
Geological Survey.
Pendleton, E.A., E.R. Thieler, and S.J. Williams. 2004b. Coastal Vulnerability Assessment of
Gulf Islands National Seashore (GUIS) to Sea-level Rise. Woods Hole, Mass.: U.S.
Geological Survey.
Platt, R.H., M. Ball, B. Gerwick, E. Harlow, F.R. Holland, V.I. Nelson, D. Nummedal, C.H.
Peterson, A. Yorkdale, and P. Zia. 1988. (Committee on Options for Preserving Cape
Hatteras Lighthouse.) Saving Cape Hatteras Lighthouse from the Sea: Options and
Policy Implications. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Rahmstorf, S. 2007. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise. Science
315, 368–370.
Toscano, M.A. 2004. Assessment of Vulnerability of Coastal Cultural and Archaeological
Resources to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Processes: Gulf Islands National Seashore, Florida and Mississippi—Recommendations for Protection and Preservation. Washington,
D.C.: National Park Service.
UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization]. 2006. The
Impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage Properties. New York: UNESCO.
———. 2007. Case Studies on Climate Change and World Heritage. New York: UNESCO.
USGS [United States Geological Survey]. 2007a. Relative coastal vulnerability assessment
of national park units to sea-level rise. Online at http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/projectpages/nps-cvi/.
———. 2007b. Photo of sandbag seawall at Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. Online at http://libraryphoto.cr.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/show_picture.cgi?ID=ID.%20Dolan,%20R.%2022ct.
Wallach, B. 2005. Understanding the Cultural Landscape. New York: Guilford Press.
Whitehead, J.C., and S.S. Finney. 2003. Willingness to pay for submerged maritime cultural resources. Journal of Cultural Economics 27, 231–240.
96
The George Wright Forum
Climate Change and Cultural Heritage
Zervas, C. 2001. Sea Level Variations of the United States, 1854–1999. NOAA Technical
Report NOS CO-OPS 36. Silver Spring, Md.: NOAA.
Maria Caffrey, Department of Geography, University of Tennessee, 304 Burchfiel Geography Building, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996; [email protected]
Rebecca Beavers, National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center, P.O. Box
25287, Denver Colorado 80225; [email protected]
Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008)
97